Two More "Axiom" Questions

[odin2547]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any other answer here simply means that you feel the smoker deserves retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with retribution. X's reckless behaviour simply put him last in line for the medication.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to do better than that. Give a reason. What you said sounds exactly like "he deserved it". It's retribution. So far, you're just making my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly retribution plays a part here, or at least judgemnet, as in judgeing someones' motives and finding them sorely lacking, thus deserving of suffering.

But to be really honest, you must question why you hold your opinions. Are you a smoker? I am, so no hit intended. You seem intelligent, thus capable of ruthless self analysis, enlighten me, for curiousities sake.

My personal opinion is that as much as I'd like to say I'd save the dog, and medicate the innocent, I'm probably lying to myself. If the pain was bad enough, I too would kill 10...PEOPLE even. (to mitigate that statement, it is not assuming 1 hour of pain but interminable, intractable, pain) I simply wish I were capable of such altruistic behavior. We are hardwired to act FIRST out of self interest, and when push comes to shove, the SURVIVOR in us will do just that, regaurdless of effects on strangers.

I mention strangers, because that's an important point. If it were my family at risk, the answer would reverse, however that too may simply be a result of hardwiring for survival. How can we be sure we actually believe anything? We can't. The brain has ways of making us talk, and believe we mean it. But does it matter if we mean it? Do motivations count, or merely actions?

As for pain management, my initial impression was medicate the innocent..here's the rub. NO ONE is innocent. It's simply a matter of defining your crimes. Two Cliches: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Judge not a man till you've walked a mile in his moccasinns. (paraphrased) Remember, this means don't judge me either...or.....yourself.

[wade17]

sklansky, why do you date little girls 1/3rd your age

[Glitch29]

[ QUOTE ]
sklansky, why do you date little girls 1/3rd your age

[/ QUOTE ]
Cut him some slack. In 100 years, she'd be 3/4 his age.

[odin2547]

[ QUOTE ]
sklansky, why do you date little girls 1/3rd your age

[/ QUOTE ]

First: I'm not 1/3 his age. Second: I didn't date him, I married him, couple of times. Third sounds like you're just jealous, of HIM and also ME, otherwise you'ld have a serious reply, instead of a redundant (and boring) ATTEMPT at humor. Maybe you want to marry him yourself? Or at least be one of his groupies?

[odin2547]

I want to add a few facts and suppositions about the nature of pain.

First, it is a survival tool. Without pain to warn us of impending disaster, we'd be much less efficient predators. And make no mistake, predator IS the correct term. We wouldn't have made it to the top of the food chain, (thus acquiring the luxury of analysis) had we not been ruthless survivors.

The greatest pleasure is the cessation of pain. Think about that. Humanity is wired to pursue pleasure, and avoid pain.

Does that imply that we may now (fat and sassy) become morally preoccupied? Of course it does! But never forget the prefrontal cortex cotrols our actions, ony after being cleared by the brainstem (read reptilian brain) Meaning we are capable of acting unselfishly, only if it doesn' really matter. Have your life seiously threatened (or your families') and see how quick you are to remain altruistic. That said, I'll tell you exactly how it would go in a triage setting (where decisions must be made quickly, with regaurd for limited supplies (of narctic Rx, personnel, etc.)

The person most LIKED would unquestionably recieve rx. Sad but true. If neither were known, (thus their smoking status) the one most akin to rescuers in looks, dress, etc. is the winner. I'm not defending the ethics of such, just pointing out a fact.

Any medical people disagree, if the decision were made sans Ethics Commitee involvement?

[odin2547]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sklansky, why do you date little girls 1/3rd your age

[/ QUOTE ]
Cut him some slack. In 100 years, she'd be 3/4 his age.

[/ QUOTE ]

For your information we met in 1981, married first in 1982. How old does that make me? I wonder, can you do the math?

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to add a few facts and suppositions about the nature of pain.

First, it is a survival tool. Without pain to warn us of impending disaster, we'd be much less efficient predators. And make no mistake, predator IS the correct term. We wouldn't have made it to the top of the food chain, (thus acquiring the luxury of analysis) had we not been ruthless survivors.

The greatest pleasure is the cessation of pain. Think about that. Humanity is wired to pursue pleasure, and avoid pain.

Does that imply that we may now (fat and sassy) become morally preoccupied? Of course it does! But never forget the prefrontal cortex cotrols our actions, ony after being cleared by the brainstem (read reptilian brain) Meaning we are capable of acting unselfishly, only if it doesn' really matter. Have your life seiously threatened (or your families') and see how quick you are to remain altruistic. That said, I'll tell you exactly how it would go in a triage setting (where decisions must be made quickly, with regaurd for limited supplies (of narctic Rx, personnel, etc.)

The person most LIKED would unquestionably recieve rx. Sad but true. If neither were known, (thus their smoking status) the one most akin to rescuers in looks, dress, etc. is the winner. I'm not defending the ethics of such, just pointing out a fact.

Any medical people disagree, if the decision were made sans Ethics Commitee involvement?

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't considering them equal as the original question stated. It's hypothetical -- not a real situation so you have to imagine them to be the exact same.

[odin2547]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want to add a few facts and suppositions about the nature of pain.

First, it is a survival tool. Without pain to warn us of impending disaster, we'd be much less efficient predators. And make no mistake, predator IS the correct term. We wouldn't have made it to the top of the food chain, (thus acquiring the luxury of analysis) had we not been ruthless survivors.

The greatest pleasure is the cessation of pain. Think about that. Humanity is wired to pursue pleasure, and avoid pain.

Does that imply that we may now (fat and sassy) become morally preoccupied? Of course it does! But never forget the prefrontal cortex cotrols our actions, ony after being cleared by the brainstem (read reptilian brain) Meaning we are capable of acting unselfishly, only if it doesn' really matter. Have your life seiously threatened (or your families') and see how quick you are to remain altruistic. That said, I'll tell you exactly how it would go in a triage setting (where decisions must be made quickly, with regaurd for limited supplies (of narctic Rx, personnel, etc.)

The person most LIKED would unquestionably recieve rx. Sad but true. If neither were known, (thus their smoking status) the one most akin to rescuers in looks, dress, etc. is the winner. I'm not defending the ethics of such, just pointing out a fact.

Any medical people disagree, if the decision were made sans Ethics Commitee involvement?

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't considering them equal as the original question stated. It's hypothetical -- not a real situation so you have to imagine them to be the exact same.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one is a smoker and in 10% greater pain, by definition they aren't the same. What you meant to say was all OTHER things being equal.. Here, however as you point out, we're dealing with a hpothetical situation. It's an ethical question, not an actual one, and to consider anything less than all positions (including what would realisticly happen, thus how people ACTUALLY make decisions) would render insufficient information.

[Artsemis]

You said:
[ QUOTE ]
If one is a smoker and in 10% greater pain, by definition they aren't the same. What you meant to say was all OTHER things being equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I said:
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't considering them equal as the original question stated. It's hypothetical -- not a real situation so you have to imagine them to be the exact same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bolded the important part -- what you responded with was exactly what I said. My reason for my last post was because of where you said this:
[ QUOTE ]
The person most LIKED would unquestionably recieve rx. Sad but true. If neither were known, (thus their smoking status) the one most akin to rescuers in looks, dress, etc. is the winner. I'm not defending the ethics of such, just pointing out a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

By liking a person more than the other, or by stating that one more appealing in looks, you are breaking the condition of "all other things equal" in the original question. A realistic situation? No... but turning it into a realistic one dodges the obvious question of morals and personal stance on the issue by introducing other variables.

[odin2547]

Obviously, but you didn't read my first post. I'm not ducking the question, simply accepting the ambiguity of my answer. What I might do at any given time is more dependent on personal perception and experience than prior evaluation. Forced to make a choice, based on no other information, you must decide to accept the stated precepts as axiomatic, but that kills the argument. The answer is either determine by triage standards, therefore medicating the 10% greater pain, or punish for prior acts (all of which are relative anyway), by medicating the lessor sufferor. I'll simply stick to national standards. Who am I to judge?

Is this fair to the one considered innocent of contributing to their predicament? Certainly not. But he shoud've been smart enough to lie about degree of pain as well as not smoking.

Exploring the underlying issues is what makes this fun.

Pain is entirely subjective. The phisiological signs that are measuarable, are recording perception, not actual nerve stimuli (including neuro pet scans which WILL show cortical activity) Even nerve scans only IDENTIFY activity, not DEFINE it). Guilt and innocense is primarily societal programming with a few potential axioms identifiable throughout differing cultures.

What about the pain I'd feel having to watch either of them suffer? I BELIEVE it's greater than both and I should take the meds myself.